20,741
edits
Nasal GC Musings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
m (→References) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Overall, porting the interpreter from C to C++ would enable the use of modern C++ features and libraries, which could potentially improve the performance, efficiency, and flexibility of the scripting language. And it could help bring Nasal up to par with other parts of the FlightGear code base. | Overall, porting the interpreter from C to C++ would enable the use of modern C++ features and libraries, which could potentially improve the performance, efficiency, and flexibility of the scripting language. And it could help bring Nasal up to par with other parts of the FlightGear code base. | ||
It is generally a good idea to use an existing, well-maintained third-party garbage collector (GC) instead of starting a new GC project from scratch. This is because existing GCs have already been thoroughly tested and debugged, and are likely to be more efficient and reliable than a new GC. | |||
Additionally, using an existing GC allows you to take advantage of the expertise and knowledge of the GC developers, who have likely spent a great deal of time optimizing and improving the GC. This can save you a significant amount of time and effort, and can help you avoid common pitfalls and mistakes that are often made when developing a new GC. | |||
== Status == | == Status == | ||
'''Last updated: 12/2022''' | '''Last updated: 12/2022''' | ||